Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this tool destructive, non-idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds that approval is explicit and that external agent memory and tool configuration are untouched, which is useful blast-radius context beyond annotations. It still does not clarify what state is overwritten, whether restoration is reversible, or what happens on failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope caveat. No filler, though the second sentence's emphasis on what is not changed would land better after a clearer statement of what is changed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description gives only partial behavioral context. It usefully rules out external memory and tool configuration changes but leaves unclear what the restored snapshot affects and what an agent should expect to happen to current state after the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate for unspecified parameters. It only indirectly gestures at the approve parameter via 'with explicit approval' and adds nothing about snapshot_id or the session capability; the schema's own description of session carries most of the useful parameter guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a retained Deep Rest snapshot in one call.' An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like rest, deep_rest_report, or consolidate_apply reasonably well. However, it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for related snapshot operations, so it misses the top level of differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'with explicit approval' implies the approve=true requirement and the second sentence gives a useful scope exclusion. But it never states when to choose restore over alternatives such as consolidate_apply, plan_update, or check_in, nor does it describe prerequisites for obtaining a snapshot_id.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.